↓ Skip to main content

Anatomical and diffusional determinants inside leaves explain the difference in photosynthetic capacity between Cypripedium and Paphiopedilum, Orchidaceae

Overview of attention for article published in Photosynthesis Research, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
Title
Anatomical and diffusional determinants inside leaves explain the difference in photosynthetic capacity between Cypripedium and Paphiopedilum, Orchidaceae
Published in
Photosynthesis Research, November 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11120-017-0466-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhong-Hui Yang, Wei Huang, Qiu-Yun Yang, Wei Chang, Shi-Bao Zhang

Abstract

Comparing with other angiosperms, most members within the family Orchidaceae have lower photosynthetic capacities. However, the underlying mechanisms remain unclear. Cypripedium and Paphiopedilum are closely related phylogenetically in Orchidaceae, but their photosynthetic performances are different. We explored the roles of internal anatomy and diffusional conductance in determining photosynthesis in three Cypripedium and three Paphiopedilum species, and quantitatively analyzed their diffusional and biochemical limitations to photosynthesis. Paphiopedilum species showed lower light-saturated photosynthetic rate (A N), stomatal conductance (g s), and mesophyll conductance (g m) than Cypripedium species. A N was positively correlated with g s and g m. And yet, in both species A N was more strongly limited by g m than by biochemical factors or g s. The greater g s of Cypripedium was mainly affected by larger stomatal apparatus area and smaller pore depth, while the less g m of Paphiopedilum was determined by the reduced surface area of mesophyll cells and chloroplasts exposed to intercellular airspace per unit of leaf area, and much thicker cell wall thickness. These results suggest that leaf anatomical structure is the key factor affecting g m, which is largely responsible for the difference in photosynthetic capacity between those two genera. Our findings provide new insight into the photosynthetic physiology and functional diversification of orchids.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 28%
Other 2 11%
Lecturer 2 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Professor 1 6%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 4 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 50%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Environmental Science 1 6%
Energy 1 6%
Neuroscience 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 November 2017.
All research outputs
#7,441,614
of 23,009,818 outputs
Outputs from Photosynthesis Research
#190
of 774 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,437
of 437,492 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Photosynthesis Research
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,009,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 774 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 437,492 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.